- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Narayan Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa .
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal before the Supreme Court concerns the proper interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by Act 40 of 1961. The High Court had held that it is not a corrupt practice if a candidate appeals to voters on the basis of the voters’ religion, provided the candidate does not invoke his own religion. The matter was tagged with Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (1996) 3 SCC 665, which was later disposed of as infructuous. After hearing senior counsel, the Supreme Court considered conflicting earlier authorities and decided to refer the present appeal to a larger Bench.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the 1961 amendment to Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a candidate’s appeal to voters on the ground of the voters’ religion—but not the candidate’s own religion—constitutes a “corrupt practice”.
- Whether the word “his” in the amended text narrows the scope of corrupt practices, despite the legislative intent to curb communal and separatist appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (1996) 3 SCC 665 | Raised the same interpretive question under Section 123(3). | Mentioned as a tagged matter that became infructuous; no substantive reliance. |
| Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel (1969) 1 SCC 455 | Three-Judge Bench authority giving a restrictive reading: appeal is corrupt only when based on the candidate’s own religion. | Cited as supporting the High Court’s construction. |
| Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (Dr) v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte (1996) 1 SCC 130 | Re-affirmed the restrictive construction, relying on the Law Minister’s speech in Parliament. | Cited as further support for the High Court’s view. |
| Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, AIR 1965 SC 141; (1964) 7 SCR 790 (Constitution Bench) | Contains observations that appear inconsistent with the restrictive interpretation. | Invoked as a reason to doubt the earlier three-Judge Bench line and justify referral to a larger Bench. |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 | Contains remarks running contrary to the restrictive view, though Section 123(3) was not directly in issue. | Noted as additional reason for resolving the conflict. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the 1961 amendment deleted the words “systematic appeal,” thereby ostensibly widening the scope of corrupt practices. However, the simultaneous insertion of the word “his” (referring to the candidate’s own religion) has been construed by certain three-Judge Bench decisions to narrow that scope: an appeal on the ground of the voters’ religion alone would not be corrupt unless the candidate’s own religion is invoked. The Court noted that this restrictive interpretation may undermine the legislative objective of curbing communal and separatist tendencies. Given the conflicting observations in the Constitution Bench decision in Kultar Singh and comments in S.R. Bommai, the Court found it appropriate to seek authoritative clarification from a larger Bench.
Holding and Implications
The matter is referred to a Bench of seven Judges.
Consequently, the appeal is not finally decided; it will be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of the larger Bench. The immediate effect is to suspend adjudication on the merits pending that reference. No new precedent is set at this stage, but the forthcoming larger-Bench judgment is expected to settle the scope of “corrupt practice” under Section 123(3) nationwide.
Order
1. Mr Chaudhari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, resumed his arguments at 10.30 a.m and concluded at 12.45 p.m Then, Mr Deshpande addressed the Court for a few minutes when the Court dictated the order.
2. In this appeal the interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as amended by Act 40 of 1961, has come up for consideration. This case had been tagged on to another case in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen (1996) 3 SCC 665. Abhiram Singh case (1996) 3 SCC 665 has been disposed of as being infructuous. The High Court in the present case has construed the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act to mean that it will not be a corrupt practice when the voters belonging to some other religion are appealed, other than the religion of the candidate. This construction gains support from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel (1969) 1 SCC 455 as well as the subsequent decision of this Court in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (Dr) v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte (1996) 1 SCC 130. In the later decision the speech of the Law Minister has been copiously referred to for giving the provision a restrictive construction in the sense that the word “his” has been purposely used and, therefore, so long as the candidate's religion is not taken recourse to, it would not be a “corrupt practice” within the meaning of Section 123(3). There are certain observations in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh AIR 1965 SC 141, (1964) 7 SCR 790 while noticing the provisions of Section 123(3) of the Act. There are certain observations in Bommai case (1994) 3 SCC 1, where this provision did not directly came up for consideration, which run contrary to the aforesaid three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court. The very object of amendment in introducing Act 40 of 1961 was for curbing the communal and separatist tendency in the country and to widen the scope of corrupt practice mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act.
3. As it appears, under the amended provision, the words “systematic appeal” in the pre-amended provision were given a go-by and necessarily therefore the scope has been widened but by introducing the word “his” and the interpretation given to the aforesaid provision in the judgments referred earlier, would give it a restrictive meaning. In other words, while under the pre-amended provision it would be a corrupt practice, if appealed by the candidate, or his agent or any other person to vote or refrain from voting on the grounds of caste, race, community or religion, it would not be so under the amended provision so long as the candidate does not appeal to the voters on the ground of his religion even though he appealed to the voters on the ground of religion of voters. In view of certain observations made in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Kultar Singh case AIR 1965 SC 141, (1964) 7 SCR 790 we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench of seven Judges to consider the matter. The matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench.
Court Masters
Alert